Florida voters face $12 billion property tax cut in Amendment 3

Florida voters will decide on Amendment 3 in the 2026 midterm election, a measure that proposes increasing the homestead tax exemption from $50,000 to as much as $250,000 over two years. The amendment seeks to shift the balance between homeowner relief and local government funding. If passed, the change could eliminate non-school homestead property taxes in many jurisdictions over time.

The Office of Economic and Demographic Research projects the amendment would reduce recurring local state revenue by nearly $12 billion. In Jacksonville, the Florida Policy Institute estimates the city could lose up to $372 million over the next five years. Local property tax revenue has nearly doubled in the state, rising from approximately $32 billion in 2019 to almost $60 billion in the last fiscal year. Officials attribute much of this growth to a post-pandemic real estate boom driven by out-of-state migration and low interest rates.

Proponents, including Governor Ron DeSantis and Florida Realtors, argue that local governments have accumulated excess revenue. Margy Grant, CEO of Florida Realtors, stated that the organization has invested $19.5 million in the Vote Yes on 3 campaign through the end of October. Grant said the measure ensures Floridians who want to stay in their homes can do so despite rising costs. Sen. Rick Scott, who supports the amendment, noted on X that every county has waste to cut and that the measure forces local governments to eliminate it.

Opponents warn that the revenue loss will strain public services. Mike Weinstein, Jacksonville’s chief administrative officer, said the city’s $2 billion budget relies heavily on property taxes. He indicated that services such as mosquito control, road surfacing, libraries, and parks will face cuts. Weinstein also noted that police and fire departments would be affected. He suggested the city might need to open a large complaints department in lieu of funding for maintenance and public works.

Steven Johnson, an organizer with Florida Rising, asked voters to consider who the affordability measures actually help. Johnson said grassroots members frequently ask if the relief targets the right group of residents. Rachel Dues, a disabled veteran and notary, relies on food pantries and public services to manage her budget. She said the amendment feels like a bait and switch, benefiting short-term homeowners while harming long-term community support systems. Dues noted that renters may absorb cost increases passed down from landlords or commercial properties.

Maggie Fernandez, a 68-year-old homeowner, is campaigning against the amendment despite potentially benefiting from it. She said the measure will hurt local services and those worse off than she is. Fernandez made 111 phone calls in one evening to urge neighbors to vote no. Organizers with Florida Rising made nearly 1,500 calls in a single night to spread the message. The amendment requires a supermajority of 60 percent to pass.

The debate has intensified as early voting continues. Supporters point to rising costs for groceries, fuel, and insurance. Critics highlight the risk to infrastructure and social safety nets. The outcome will determine whether local governments in Florida must find alternative revenue sources or reduce service levels to balance their budgets.